Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 295–303 | Cite as

A constructivist approach to secondary school science experiments

  • Wayne Schulz
  • Campbell McRobbie
Article

Abstract

The focus of this study was on the investigation of a laboratory instructional program on electricity designed for conceptual development using constructivist principles for conceptual change. This approach was compared with a traditional laboratory approach in a quasi-experimental design. The sample was 247 grade 10 students (boys) in a large non-government urban school. Covariance analysis with the corresponding pretest as covariate showed statistically and educationally significant gains for the experimental group on cognitive but not attitudinal outcomes when compared to the traditional group. Student and teacher interview data provide some evidence for the success of the experimental approach.

Keywords

School Science Interview Data Conceptual Change Constructivist Approach Significant Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, G.C. (1978). The role of the laboratory in secondary schools programs. In M.B. Rowe, (Ed.),What research says to the science teacher Vol 1, (pp. 55–82). Washington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bjorklund, D.F., & Frankel, M.T. (1989).Information processing approaches from children's thinking: Developmental function and individual differences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Boud, D.J., Dunn, J., Kennedy, T., & Thorley, R. (1980). The aims of science laboratory courses: A survey of students, graduates and practising scientists.European Journal of Science Education, 2(4), 415–428.Google Scholar
  4. Bredderman, T. (1985). Laboratory programs for elementary school science: A meta-analysis of effects on learning.Science Education, 69(4), 577–591.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  6. Clossett, J.L. (1985). Using cognitive conflict to teach electricity. In R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhoneck (Eds),Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 375–378). Keil: Institu für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  7. Cosgrove, M., Osborne, R., & Carr, M. (1985). Children's intuitive ideas on electric current and the modification of those ideas. In R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhoneck (Eds.),Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 247–256). Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Denny, M., & Chennell, F. (1986). Science practicals: What do pupils think?European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 325–336.Google Scholar
  9. Duit, R., Jung, W., & von Rhoneck, C. (Eds) (1985).Aspects of understanding electricity: Proceedings of an international workshop. Kiel: Institute für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  10. Friedler, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). Life in science laboratory classrooms at secondary level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 337–356). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, P., & Gauld, C. (1990). Labwork and students' attitudes. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 132–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Gunstone, R.F., & Champagne, A. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 342–352). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hartel, H. (1985). The electric circuit as a system. In R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhoneck (Eds),Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 342–352). Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  14. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Research on laboratory work. In D. Boud, J. Dunn and E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.),Teaching in laboratories (pp. 129–152). Guildford: The Society for Research into Higher Education and NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  15. Heller, P.M. & Finley, F.N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 259–275.Google Scholar
  16. Henry, N.W. (1975). Objectives for laboratory work. In P.L. Gardner (Ed.),The structure of science education (pp. 61–75). Hawthorn, Vic.: Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 53–66.Google Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science.School Science Review, 73(264), 65–78.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research.Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.Google Scholar
  20. Johnston, K. (Ed.) (1990).Interactive teaching and science: Workshops for training Courses. Herts.: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  21. Johnstone, A.H. & Letton, K.M. (1991). Why do practical work? A researcher's point of view.Chemeda: The Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 31(46–49).Google Scholar
  22. Lefrancois, G.R. (1988).Psychology for teaching. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. McRobbie, C.J., Fraser, B.J., & Giddings, J. (1991, November). The psychosocial environment of science laboratories. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Surfers Paradise, Queensland.Google Scholar
  24. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985).Learning in science: The implication of children's science. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  25. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education, 66(2) 211–227.Google Scholar
  26. Psillos, D., Koumaras, P., & Valassiades, O. (1987). Pupils' representations of electric current before, during and after instruction on DC circuits.Research in Science and Technological Education, 5(2), 185–199.Google Scholar
  27. Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W-M (1992). Student involvement in learning: Collaboration in science for preservice elementary teachers.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(2), 47–52.Google Scholar
  28. Saunders, W.L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science.School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–141.Google Scholar
  29. Shuell, T. (1987). Cognitive psychology and conceptual change: Implications for teaching science.Science Education, 71(2), 239–250.Google Scholar
  30. Standbridge, B. (1990). A constructivist model of learning used in the teaching of junior science.The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 20–27.Google Scholar
  31. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning.School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.Google Scholar
  32. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms?Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549–560.Google Scholar
  33. van den Berg, E., & Giddings, G. (1992).Laboratory practical work: An alternative view of laboratory teaching. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  34. von Rhoneck, C. (1985). The introduction of voltage as an independent variable: The importance of preconceptions, cognitive conflict and operating rules. In R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhoneck (Eds),Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 275–286). Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  35. Watson, B., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children's experience.Phi Delta Kappan,71(9).Google Scholar
  36. White, R.T. (1988). Theory into practice. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 121–132). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  37. Woolnough, B.E. (1989). Towards a holistic view of processes in science education. In J. Wellington (Ed.),Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Woolnough, B., & Allsop, T. (1985).Practical work in science. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne Schulz
    • 1
  • Campbell McRobbie
    • 2
  1. 1.Anglican Church Grammar SchoolEast Brisbane
  2. 2.Centre for Mathematics and Science EducationQueensland University of TechnologyRed Hill

Personalised recommendations